Advertisments

Plot
In an alternate Victorian Age world, a group of famous contemporary fantasy, SF and adventure characters team up on a secret mission.

Release Year: 2003

Rating: 5.5/10 (71,021 voted)

Critic's Score: 30/100

Director:
Stephen Norrington

Stars: Sean Connery, Stuart Townsend, Peta Wilson

Storyline Renowned adventurer Allan Quatermain leads a team of extraordinary figures with legendary powers to battle the technological terror of a madman known as "The Fantom." This "League" comprises seafarer/inventor Captain Nemo, vampiress Mina Harker, an invisible man named Rodney Skinner, American secret service agent Tom Sawyer, the ageless and invincible Dorian Gray, and the dangerous split personality of Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde.

Trivia:
A scene was cut from the film where Tom Sawyer explains that he and his friend, Agent Huck Finn, were tracking down the Fantom, and that the Fantom killed Huck. This is the reason why Sawyer is so intent on getting the Fantom.

Goofs:
Revealing mistakes:
During some of the head shots of characters in the scene on the bridge of the Nautilus, the sea behind them is frozen in place; no waves, no light off the water.

I've been reading the comments page in a somewhat bemused fashion. It
seems to be divided between people who don't like the movie because it's not
enough like the original graphic novel and people who don't like it because
they've never heard of half of the characters that are members of the
League. The latter seems to me to be an unutterably silly reason for
disliking a film. Does nobody read the classics anymore? Nobody reads
Oscar Wilde, Bram Stoker, Robert Louis Stevenson, Jules Verne, H.G. Wells,
or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle? I find that difficult to believe. As to the
former--not enough like the graphic novel, in other words--just how in the
heck can a screenwriter accommodate the dark and twisted visions of Alan
Moore in a two-hour Hollywood movie, anyway?

I don't believe that one can compare anything written by Alan Moore to
what ends up on the screen being ostensibly "based on the graphic novel".
(The same applies to FROM HELL, which is another one most people pan, and
one which I think is under-appreciated even though the style is
breathtaking. I don't even want to think about the reaction that will ensue
once THE WATCHMEN comes out!)

What seems to have been missed by most people is that this movie is
about style as opposed to substance. It's based on a graphic novel. That's
a fancy way of saying it's based on a comic book. On that level, the film
succeeds admirably. The characters are archetypes of their literary
forbears. They aren't supposed to be, strictly speaking, human. Of course
the plot is grandiose, impractical, and over-the-top. Hello? Aren't most
comic books like that? Good heavens, isn't most of STAR
WARS?

I don't claim that this is a masterpiece. I do claim that's it's fun
to watch if one approaches it with a willing suspension of disbelief. For a
couple of bucks shelled out at the DVD rental shop, it takes one to a
different world for close to two hours. On that level, it's worth a rental.
It's also worth a rental, once one watches the movie, to listen to the
commentary from various actors and to realize just how well these so-called
"unknowns" do assorted accents that aren't even close to their own. Plus
the golfing anecdotes are amusing. (And I don't even like
golfing.)

This ain't CASABLANCA. Nor is it TITANIC, for which I eternally thank
the gods. (Now, THERE was an overhyped piece of inaccurate trash that
pretended to be history, but I digress.) But it's kind of fun, anyway, as
long as one doesn't take it too seriously.